282 Etudutlon of Morals. 



man only ? What arc wc to do with the {^nats and niostjuitoes, for 

 instance ? "Fulness of life " is a very vague phrase for a Hiuiunum 

 boniuii. In mere mechanism there is no tendency either to good 

 or evil. TIu'ii, according to this philosopliy, the moment this ten- 

 dency gets where it can be of use, the moment it gets into life, it 

 errs. "Fulness of life" is defined as "subjective satisfacticm." 

 Hut animals have no morality, yet they seek this satisfaction. 

 ( arnivorous animals destroy " fulness of life " in seeking this sat- 

 isfaction. Only the satisfaction of intelligence, without reference 

 to pleasure, shows the moral. Evolution puts the cart before the 

 horse. The moral sense inherent in the constitution of man has 

 developed morality, not physical changes and social necessities. 

 If environment produces morality, why are not animals moral ? 

 It is the fundamental moral faculty that is the cause of moral 

 development. 



Kev. John W. Chadwick: — 



I am surprised at Professor Davidson's torrent of negation. 1 

 had hoped that he would give some reasons for the faith that is 

 in him. I will not speak at length in reply to his statements, from 

 which I dissent, preferring to give as much time as possible to Dr. 

 Janes. 



Mr. Thomas Gardner: — 



I find myself thoroughly in accord with Dr. Janes in his treat- 

 ment of this question. I cannot understand how an intelligent 

 man can ascribe the rejection of the metaphysical philosoi^hy, by 

 leading scientific men, to their ignorance of the literature of that 

 school of thought. Certainly Spencer and Huxley, and others of 

 the Evolution school, have shown abundant knowledge of meta- 

 physics. If I were to criticise Dr. Janes' s able paper, it would be 

 in that he has omitted the admiration of the heroic and the love 

 of the beautiful in considering the influences which led to the 

 evolution of morals. These influences were of great importance,, 

 it appears to me. 



Mr. Nelson J. Gates: — 



I regret that Professor Davidson made no definite affirmations- 

 in exiiressinghis dissent from Dr. Janes' s paper. Evolution holds 

 that morals are developed from within, from the very constiiution 

 of things. But all ethical theories must be tested by experience^ 

 The theory of the Sermon on the Mount was evolved from a con- 

 sideration of the static relations of human society, but it has beeit 



